Opinion
1:20-CV-1108
09-22-2021
ANTHONY D. SIMONETTI, Plaintiff, v. CHRISTOPHER ROBINSON, Defendant.
Arbuckle, Magistrate Judge.
ORDER
Matthew W. Brann, Chief United States District Judge.
Plaintiff filed the instant action in June 2020, and it was jointly assigned to the undersigned and to a magistrate judge. Upon designation, a magistrate judge may “conduct hearings, including evidentiary hearings, and . . . submit to a judge of the court proposed findings of fact and recommendations.” Once filed, this report and recommendation is disseminated to the parties in the case who then have the opportunity to file written objections.
On August 27, 2021, Magistrate Judge William I. Arbuckle, to whom this matter is jointly assigned, issued a thorough report and recommendation recommending that the action be dismissed.
No objections to the report and recommendation have been filed. For portions of the report and recommendation to which no objection is made, the Court should, as a matter of good practice, “satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Regardless of whether timely objections are made by a party, the District Court may accept, not accept, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), advisory committee notes; see also Univac Dental Co. v. Dentsply Intern., Inc., 702 F.Supp.2d 465, 469 (M.D. Pa. 2010) (citing Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987) (explaining that judges should give some review to every report and recommendation)).
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.31.
Because I write solely for the parties, I will not restate the facts, but will instead adopt the recitation of facts as set forth by the magistrate judge. I have conducted a de novo review here and found no error.
AND NOW, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Magistrate Judge Arbuckle's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 22) is ADOPTED in full.
2. The Plaintiff's federal law claims are DISMISSED as legally and factually frivolous.
3. The Court DECLINES to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims against all individuals named in the Complaint and Supplements;
4. The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 15) is DENIED as MOOT; and
5. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case file.